This volume is an ideal complement to a graduate school syllabus, but is accessible enough to be used by advanced undergraduates. All of the essays are clearly written despite the opacity of the theoretical constructs. The strength of the volume lies in the manner in which the editor and the contributors set forth the theoretical underpinnings of their investigations.  Amanda Piesse, for example, provides a clear and concise articulation of new historicism. All the essays, however, are as exasperating as they are enlightening.  Like a lawyer before the bench arguing his or her case, the authors play fast and loose with the evidence to insure that their client--in this case their theoretical perspective--will be presented in the best light.  Mitigating textual evidence or contrary theoretical ideas are either misconstrued, belittled or ignored.

The best (or worst) example of this is found in Nicholas Radel’s essay, "Reading as a Feminist."  Radel constructs a house of cards and uses selectively the text of Measure to support it.  For example, he asserts that Isabella is the voice of mercy and forgiveness in the play and thus "by gendering mercy as a feminine complement of masculine justice, Measure for Measure attempts to exploit its utopian ideal in the service of a decidedly non-utopian, patriarchal political world"  (116).  To support this contention, Radel jumps to 2.2, 2.4, and the fifth act to illustrate how Isabel articulates mercy.  The author, however, avoids consciously any mention of 2.1 where Escalus in both word and deed challenges Angelo’s strident notion of justice.  The merciful manner in which Escalus treats both Pompey and Froth stands in direct contrast to Angelo’s fundamentalist position.  In 2.2, prior to Isabel’s entrance, the Provost also articulates both mercy and forgiveness when he asks Angelo to reconsider Claudio’s sentence.  Angelo’s harsh reply and implied threat against the Provost silences this point of view.  All of this occurs before Isabel has uttered a single word on the subject.  Radel’s solution to this contradiction is simply to ignore it by not referring to these moments in his analysis.  Even worse, Radel goes outside the text to further his view in his discussion of the fifth act.  He informs us that "Isabella’s notoriously difficult silence [prior to pleading for Mariana] ... (and) her acceptance of marriage to the Duke are more powerful for us than they may have been for a Renaissance audience" (126).  Of course, such a silence (first used in performance by Peter Brook in his landmark 1950 production) does not exist in the Folio.  And there is no textual reference that implicitly states that Isabel accepts the Duke’s offer of marriage.

Amanda Piesse, in her essay "Self-preservation in the Shakespearean System: Gender, Power and the New History" follows the same rocky path that Radel travels.  After a brilliant and concise explication of new historicism and a well wrought discussion of the play in its historical context, Piesse sets off on a strained close reading that is structured to support her thesis that "self-location is symptomatic of the Renaissance text" (59).  Piesse’s argument is much more cogent and compelling then Radel’s and she is careful to qualify both her argument and her critical stance by acknowledging its idiosyncratic character.  Nevertheless, she arrives at conclusions that are at best suspect.  The crux of her argument is that women are defined by the men in the play and are not allowed to articulate their own idea of self.  Why then does she report blithely that Elbow’s wife is a prostitute?  The only evidence for this is Pompey’s description--perhaps the clearest example in the play of a man, an obvious oppressor of women, defining a female (78).  Finally, Piesse informs the reader that the Duke, at the end of the play, silences the voice of truth--Lucio (87).  This is a startling statement, since the reader knows for a fact that Lucio is an unmitigated liar as evidenced by his description of Friar Lodowick in the fifth act.  Like Radel, Piesse omits any mention of this because it contradicts her interpretative stance.

By far the best essay in the book is Richard Wilson’s "Prince of Darkness: Foucault’s Shakespeare."  This piece illustrates the strengths of new historicism by using documentation from the period in conjunction with a theoretical construct to illuminate the text.  It is an innovative and insightful essay that forces the reader to recontextualize the play.  The least satisfying essay is Peter Corbin’s "Performing Measure for Measure."  Corbin’s knowledge of Renaissance drama and literature--as evidenced by the breadth of his discussion--is quite impressive, but his knowledge of performance theory is practically non-existent.  The author attempts to analyze performance choices and its impact upon audiences without any reference to the Russian Formalists, the Czech school of semiotics, and the recent work of Elam, Esslin or Pavis.  The word semiotics never appears once in the essay while the author sets forth his own rudimentary notion of performance analysis.  Corbin limits his discussion of productions to five RST examples.  No mention is made of productions by Guthrie, Brook, Miller, Warner, or any of the multitude of productions on this side of the Atlantic.  This is particularly galling in his discussion of audience response to the play.  Corbin assumes that contemporary audiences are a homogeneous group that receive the play in an identical manner.  Such an essay cries out for a discussion of Michael Kahn’s 1992 production in Washington on the heels of the Clarence Thomas hearings or Joseph Papp’s NYSF production in 1985  when the audience laughed at Isabella’s predicament.  The author, however, is apparently unaware of these productions.

Proponents and opponents of new trends in Shakespearean scholarship--particularly new historicism--will be well advised to read this volume.  Individual responses will depend largely on the reader’s attitude toward such textual exegesis.  Both sides will derive ample ammunition to further their cause. These essays invite strong responses and will undoubtedly serve as a springboard for lively discussion and further exploration--the perfect classroom text!